Originally Posted by Cup8489
Why bring up the clay issue? Did you not read my post? I said that Pete's ground game didn't back up his serve as well as Federers, so of course Federer would have an equally easy time holding serve today because his groundstrokes cancel out the advantage that Pete's serve gives in the equation, so that Pete's serve+groundstrokes combo is not really better or worse than Federer's, except on clay, since FEDERER GREW UP ON IT.
Get a clue, you're completely biased; that's like saying that Roddick's hold and winning percentage on clay should be the true measure of how effective his serve is compared to Federer's. It's shameless bias, and you know it. There's no reason to say clay vs. other surfaces is a better indicator. I could just as easily say that old grass is the best indicator of how well you hold serve, since you NEED to hold serve to have a chance.
But i'm not going to say that, because it's nonsense. So I'm playing by the hold percentage.
Right, Federer has more grass titles because he played warmup tournaments. Sampras has more Wimbledons, where it really counts. and no, the only person who should be embarassed is you, telling someone to be objective when you're the single most biased person in the thread.
You make normal Fed fans look bad. And Sampras absolutely deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer.
And Sampras grew up on hard courts, yet Federer's record far surpasses Sampras in HC; so what's the point of bringing up where he grew up? Are you claiming that the fast surfaces didn't aid sampras more in holding serve than the slower surfaces of today? what BS -- the world's "greatest" serve comes up a cropper on clay. Here's a gentle reminder: the surfaces were slowed down (wimby, especially) because the tournament was turning into a serve fest. Are you still going to deny that Sampras had an easier time holding serve because the surfaces barring clay aided him?
yeah, Federer has more grass titles because he played warm up tourneys? and sampras didn't? it's Federer's fault that sampras lost early? what a moronic argument.. you seem to get into this mode anytime there's a Federer vs Sampras argument.
you don't get to define what a "normal" federer fan is. may be you like Sampras and Federer equally, so you play the objectivity card, and would clamor for them to be mentioned in the same breath -- but i don't have to. i
look at facts, and it's pretty evident that Federer is a league above sampras.